+ Post New Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 22 of 22
General Chat Thread, Now this genuinely made my jaw drop! in General; ...
  1. #16

    MK-2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Nottingham
    Posts
    3,237
    Thank Post
    149
    Thanked 581 Times in 307 Posts
    Blog Entries
    8
    Rep Power
    200
    Quote Originally Posted by sonofsanta View Post
    You might want some decent storage space with that - 1TB is pretty good value at £23,000 these days...

    1TB SATA - MDS600 W/(70) | Ebuyer.com
    Don't forget with that one you can save money by buying the SATA cables too, quite the offer there!

  2. #17

    Domino's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Bromley
    Posts
    4,157
    Thank Post
    215
    Thanked 1,260 Times in 791 Posts
    Blog Entries
    4
    Rep Power
    507
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnCondon View Post
    This is the sort of gear you'll find in the animator machines at PIXAR, plus probably a few in the render farm machines they use.
    Actually you'll find they use a custom RenderMan Linux cluster setup that does all the crunching, with fibre to each desktop to get proper swift render perfomance. Cool Stuff: A Look at Pixar and LucasFilm’s Renderfarms | /Film

    You'd find them in the colourmatch/sampling machines though I'd reckon...

  3. #18

    Michael's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Birmingham
    Posts
    9,262
    Thank Post
    242
    Thanked 1,568 Times in 1,250 Posts
    Rep Power
    340
    Blimey, the Quadro 6000 consumes up to 204W of power. That's almost double the best Intel CPU on the market. It all sounds very nice, but I can't actually think of a scenario where you'd need 6GB of GPU memory. You may use up around 1GB running some of the latest PC games at a 2560x1600 resolution.

    PC games use more system memory rather than GPU memory these days. It would be good if higher clocked GPU memory could be used as system memory

  4. #19


    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    51.403651, -0.515458
    Posts
    8,919
    Thank Post
    226
    Thanked 2,676 Times in 1,973 Posts
    Rep Power
    787
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael View Post
    Blimey, the Quadro 6000 consumes up to 204w of power.
    That's nothing! Asus' limited edition MARS II dual GTX 580 graphics card uses 729 watts when running FurMark. This drops to just 502 watts when playing Crysis 2.

    I would take this card over a Quadro 6000 any day. It looks fantastic. Shame about the price though... £1,199.50!!!

  5. #20

    mac_shinobi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    9,766
    Thank Post
    3,274
    Thanked 1,053 Times in 974 Posts
    Rep Power
    365
    Quote Originally Posted by Arthur View Post
    That's nothing! Asus' limited edition MARS II dual GTX 580 graphics card uses 729 watts when running FurMark. This drops to just 502 watts when playing Crysis 2.

    I would take this card over a Quadro 6000 any day. It looks fantastic. Shame about the price though... £1,199.50!!!
    Do they do or make a card that is dual GTX 590 or is there not much difference between 580 and 590 ?

  6. #21

    Michael's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Birmingham
    Posts
    9,262
    Thank Post
    242
    Thanked 1,568 Times in 1,250 Posts
    Rep Power
    340
    Quote Originally Posted by Arthur View Post
    That's nothing! Asus' limited edition MARS II dual GTX 580 graphics card uses 729 watts when running FurMark. This drops to just 502 watts when playing Crysis 2.

    I would take this card over a Quadro 6000 any day. It looks fantastic. Shame about the price though... £1,199.50!!!
    Not very green really is it @ 729W. You would certainly notice a difference in your bills running that for a few hours everyday, even at idle

  7. #22


    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    51.403651, -0.515458
    Posts
    8,919
    Thank Post
    226
    Thanked 2,676 Times in 1,973 Posts
    Rep Power
    787
    Quote Originally Posted by mac_shinobi View Post
    Do they do or make a card that is dual GTX 590 or is there not much difference between 580 and 590?
    The dual GTX 580 MARS II is actually faster than a GTX 590...

    Code-named "Gemini" during its development, the GTX 590 has a pair of GF110 chips onboard, and those GPUs haven't had any of their onboard hardware disabled. Unit counts therefore mirror those for a pair of GeForce GTX 580 cards in SLI. Yet in order to keep the GTX 590 within a manageable power limit, Nvidia has dialed back the clock speeds to levels well below the GeForce GTX 570's. The GTX 590's core clock is just 607MHz, and the GDDR5 memory ticks along at 854MHz—or about 3.4 GT/s. So, although these are fully-enabled GF110 GPUs, the GTX 590's projected rates for key graphics capabilities look very much like a pair of GeForce GTX 570s, not two full-on GTX 580s. (Source)
    As is now customary for dual-GPU cards, NVIDIA has put together two of their top-tier GPUs and turned down the clocks in order to make a power/heat budget. In single card configurations we’ve seen GF110 hit 772MHz for the GTX 580, but that was for a card that can hit 300W load under the right/wrong circumstances. For the GTX 590 the clocks are down to 607MHz, while the functional unit count remains unchanged with everything enabled. Meanwhile memory clocks have also been reduced to the lowest clocks we’ve seen since the GTX 470: 853.5MHz (3414MHz data rate). NVIDIA has never hit very high memory clocks on the GTX 500 series, so it stands to reason that routing two 384-bit busses only makes the job harder.

    All told at these clocks comparisons to the GTX 570 are more apt than comparisons to the GTX 580. Even compared to the GTX 570, per-GPU GTX 590 only has 83% the rasterization, 88% of the shading/texturing capacity and 99.5% the ROP capacity. Where the GTX 590 has the edge on the GTX 570 on a per-GPU basis is that with all of GF110’s functional units enabled and a 384-bit memory bus, it has 108% of the memory bandwidth and 120% the L2 cache. As a result while performance should be close to the GTX 570 on a per-GPU basis, it will fluctuate depending on the biggest bottleneck, with shading/texturing being among the worst scenarios, and L2 cache/memory bandwidth being among the best. Consequently, total performance should be close to the GTX 570 SLI. (Source)
    With two MARS II's (quad SLI), it would be pretty easy to justify a 1500 watt PSU.
    Last edited by Arthur; 1st September 2011 at 02:25 PM.

SHARE:
+ Post New Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Similar Threads

  1. This made my day
    By Little-Miss in forum General Chat
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 9th October 2010, 09:23 AM
  2. [Pics] This made my day
    By BassTech in forum Jokes/Interweb Things
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 15th December 2009, 12:18 PM
  3. This just gets my goat....
    By tech_guy in forum General Chat
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 8th October 2007, 10:05 AM
  4. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 14th November 2006, 08:21 AM

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •